CDZ Maybe Those "Evil" Rich People Will Save Us?

[Foxfyre]

I had to chuckle when I ran across this article. All our complaining about a feckless Congress that can't or won't get anything done has apparently fallen on deaf ears. Congress doesn't try to get much done actually. The status quo serves them personally much better than actually doing something.

So now we have the super rich, mega donor crowd chiming in. And they threaten to close the donor bank if Congress doesn't get off its rear end, repeal Obamacare, and reform taxes. They know full well there is a limited time to do that before the 2018 campaign is in high gear.

And all I can say to that is "right on!"

Donors to GOP: No cash until action on health care, taxes

 

[RodISHI]

A prudent choice. Society has been losing way too many good doctors also over the mess that they created with their ACA.

I did some more sleuthing on some of the connections in that whole take out in the mining affair the other day. It was very interesting the connections I found between New Castle and Virgin. I'm guessing at this point but I would imagine some of the big players in the insurance industry for ACA will tie in there too.

 

[usmbguest5318]

OT:

The status quo serves them personally much better than actually doing something.

How so?

 

[Coyote]

Yet they seem to be tone deaf to what the people want:

G.O.P. Senators Might Not Realize It, but Not One State Supports the Republican Health Bill
Only 17% of Americans support 'Trumpcare' in new poll
Polling

 

[usmbguest5318]

So now we have the super rich, mega donor crowd chiming in. And they threaten to close the donor bank if Congress doesn't get off its rear end, repeal Obamacare, and reform taxes. They know full well there is a limited time to do that before the 2018 campaign is in high gear.

And all I can say to that is "right on!"

While you may say "right on," people who recognize that money is what drives much, too much actually, of all policy actions and positions will see the announcement as just one more indicator of the corrupting influence money has in the American political and legislative process. People of principle and integrity who decry the political influence of "big money" will object to money's controlling influence regardless of whether it is used to advance matters they support or those they oppose; thus they will also not espouse a "right on" view of the the mega-rich's ultimatum/quid pro quo of which you write.

 

[Foxfyre]

OT:

The status quo serves them personally much better than actually doing something.

How so?

The permanent political class in Washington exists for its own benefit, not ours. They arrive in Washington usually moderately well to do. When they leave, they are mostly 1 percenters. They use their office to increase their personal influence, power, and personal wealth. And they maintain the status quo so that nothing interferes with their ability to be self-serving. Somebody like President Trump who actually wants to accomplish something good for the country threatens their very existence.

They throw us just enough bones to keep us voting for them. The only difference in Republicans and Democrats for the most part are the bases that they serve and therefore they throw different kinds of bones to their base.

But, if the big money guys they depend on to maintain their lifestyles and ambitions give them problems, and that should catch on, they might have to start doing their jobs and become public servants. What an effing nightmare!!!!! Yes?

 

[RodISHI]

OT:

The status quo serves them personally much better than actually doing something.

How so?

The permanent political class in Washington exists for its own benefit, not ours. They arrive in Washington usually moderately well to do. When they leave, they are mostly 1 percenters. They use their office to increase their personal influence, power, and personal wealth. And they maintain the status quo so that nothing interferes with their ability to be self-serving. Somebody like President Trump threatens their very existence.

They throw us just enough bones to keep us voting for them. The only difference in Republicans and Democrats for the most part are the bases that they serve and therefore they throw different kinds of bones to their base.

But, if the big money guys they depend on to maintain their lifestyles and ambitions give them problems, and that should catch on, they might have to start doing their jobs and become public servants. What an effing nightmare!!!!! Yes?

Everyone of them that has let themselves be compromised needs to step down. Then each and everyone going in needs to do it for the right reasons to actually serve the people and not plan on making it a lifelong career move.

 

[Foxfyre]

So now we have the super rich, mega donor crowd chiming in. And they threaten to close the donor bank if Congress doesn't get off its rear end, repeal Obamacare, and reform taxes. They know full well there is a limited time to do that before the 2018 campaign is in high gear.

And all I can say to that is "right on!"

While you may say "right on," people who recognize that money is what drives much, too much actually, of all policy actions and positions will see the announcement as just one more indicator of the corrupting influence money has in the American political and legislative process. People of principle and integrity who decry the political influence of "big money" will object to money's controlling influence regardless of whether it is used to advance matters they support or those they oppose; thus they will also not espouse a "right on" view of the the mega-rich's ultimatum/quid pro quo of which you write.

As Peter Schweizer's book EXTORTION brilliantly demonstrated, it works both ways. Big business in America pays off the Congress to maintain the status quo--Congress dangles attractive legislation and suggests its passage depends on big money donors or it dangles harmful legislation and suggests that taking it off the table depends on big money donors. They don't say that in so many words of course, but everybody knows how the game is played. That is why so many of the big businesses contribute to both parties.

Those who benefit more from big government and government programs give more to Democrats. Those who benefit from less government interference give more to Republicans. But don't pretend they aren't aware of what government is doing and how it will affect them.

And now we may have a game changer if this new trend of patriotic rich start demanding that Congress do what is right or else.

If it catches on we might actually regain our government of the people and start electing more true public servants who are less susceptible to being 'bought'.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yet they seem to be tone deaf to what the people want:

G.O.P. Senators Might Not Realize It, but Not One State Supports the Republican Health Bill
Only 17% of Americans support 'Trumpcare' in new poll
Polling

Certainly those whose healthcare is government subsidized, i.e. by the taxpayer, want those subsidies to continue. Certainly those receiving free healthcare want to continue to get free healthcare. Certainly those who don't have any clue what the ACA has done to the country believe at least some of those who tell them that the reform will throw millions out of their healthcare plans and kill babies and old people and drown puppies.

A poll is only as good as who they poll. And the media, most especially left wing advocates such as Business Insider, are going to promote the idea that Republicans are evil and the Democrats are wonderful to protect Obamacare that most Americans despise.

With almost no objective publicity re what the Republicans are proposing, I am not surprised that so many Americans have no idea what they are proposing but believe the negative press.

I have no doubt that some things in the Republican proposal won't work out as intended. I am also confident that they will leave open ways to fine tune, amend, ad to, and correct what they pass.

For sure Obamacare is imploding under its own weight. And all projections are that there will be another massive increase in premiums this year if something isn't done. And those who have been priced out of their insurance are likely to vote very differently than those who are having theirs furnished for them.

 

[Coyote]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

 

[Coyote]

I have to say something on this particular point:

With almost no objective publicity re what the Republicans are proposing, I am not surprised that so many Americans have no idea what they are proposing but believe the negative press.

Ahead of the ACA, Obama and others spent a considerable amount of time going around the country and explaining it to the people. Have the Republicans done the same?

This might be part of the problem with "objective publicity" - it's hard to be "objective" when it's all in secret - even from their own party members. ACA wasn't crammed in 4 short months, it was over a year in development.

 

[RodISHI]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

Actual poor people do not have any benefit whatsoever from ACA. I know as we have been on poverty row since the great bank stripping via the corrupt courts here.

 

[Foxfyre]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

There would be fewer poor people if well intentioned but wrong headed people didn't keep doing the wrong things for them.

 

[Coyote]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

There would be fewer poor people if well intentioned but wrong headed people didn't keep doing the wrong things for them.

Looking at the history of mankind....I don't think so. Poverty has always been a very complex issue. And no one has really "solved" it.

Many of the people who need help with affordable health care are the "working poor". They aren't folks on welfare.

 

[Coyote]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

Actual poor people do not have any benefit whatsoever from ACA. I know as we have been on poverty row since the great bank stripping via the corrupt courts here.

I agree. They're already covered. But there is a substantial number of "working poor" who are screwed when it comes to health care costs. They benefited from subsidies and medicaid expansion.

 

[RodISHI]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

Actual poor people do not have any benefit whatsoever from ACA. I know as we have been on poverty row since the great bank stripping via the corrupt courts here.

I agree. They're already covered. But there is a substantial number of "working poor" who are screwed when it comes to health care costs. They benefited from subsidies and medicaid expansion.

You are also wrong about already being covered. We have no medical insurance of any kind. I should have been cover for the chemical exposure while working but too many corrupt people are involved in the insurance and medical industry. I have fully describe that already on this forum and I won't repeat it all. Rod has the VA for many issues he may face but that is too far to get to unless he was in an emergency situation and dying; that is if the hospital here would transfer him in an emergency situation. Define exactly "working poor". My son is putting out $1,800.00 a month for his part in the ACA for himself and his son and he is by no means rich. We could live pretty damn good on that much every month. I used to be able to go to a wonderful doctor that had his own office but control freaks and assholes insure he wouldn't keep his small practice open because they were not getting their cut of his pie

 

[Coyote]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

Actual poor people do not have any benefit whatsoever from ACA. I know as we have been on poverty row since the great bank stripping via the corrupt courts here.

I agree. They're already covered. But there is a substantial number of "working poor" who are screwed when it comes to health care costs. They benefited from subsidies and medicaid expansion.

You are also wrong about already being covered. We have no medical insurance of any kind. I should have been cover for the chemical exposure while working but too many corrupt people are involved in the insurance and medical indistry. I have fully describe that already on this forum and I won't repeat it all. Rod has the VA for many issues he may face but that is too far to get to unless he was in an emergency situation and dying; that is if the hospital here would transfer him in an emergency situation. Define exactly "working poor". My son is putting out $1,800.00 a month for his part in the ACA for himself and his son and he is by no means rich. We could live pretty damn good on that much every month. I used to be able to go to a wonderful doctor that had his own office but control freaks and assholes insure he wouldn't keep his small practice open because they were not getting their cut of his pie

The truly poor are covered through Medicaid aren't they?

It also sound like you are facing a variety of bad situations I know what you mean about the issue with doctors - my husband lost his because he couldn't compete financially with the big physician conglomerates that are taking over. The VA is another big mess - we have one within an hour but - other parts of the state are two hours from the nearest VA center.

I have health insurance via work - but because my husband has so many preexisting conditions I don't dare become self employed or take any employment that would jeopardize my having insurance.

What do you see as a reasonable alternative for ACA - or - how could it be fixed?

 

[Foxfyre]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

There would be fewer poor people if well intentioned but wrong headed people didn't keep doing the wrong things for them.

Looking at the history of mankind....I don't think so. Poverty has always been a very complex issue. And no one has really "solved" it.

Many of the people who need help with affordable health care are the "working poor". They aren't folks on welfare.

I have been blessed to be in occupations and avocations dealing with, working with, and assisting the 'poor' much of my adult life. And that has reinforced my opinion that Benjamin Franklin was absolutely right when he wrote:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."​

 

[RodISHI]

The truly poor are covered through Medicaid aren't they?

No it depends on the state and they can turn any application down. Here there are people that literally would rather have seen me die verses give me any medical care. Thank God we have had the Internet and there is so much info online. I am getting better a piece and portion at a time. It would have been nice to have certain test so I could determine a few things positively but we didn't so its been a bit of a guessing game as I learn what could be done to mitigate the damage that was done.

What do you see as a reasonable alternative for ACA - or - how could it be fixed?

I have some ideas but a lot of things need to be restructured and it would take me awhile to get it all written down. I'm not a proficient writer so writing anything is a long and tedious task for me...like I have told most on here I used to hire people to do those type things for me.

 

[RodISHI]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

There would be fewer poor people if well intentioned but wrong headed people didn't keep doing the wrong things for them.

Looking at the history of mankind....I don't think so. Poverty has always been a very complex issue. And no one has really "solved" it.

Many of the people who need help with affordable health care are the "working poor". They aren't folks on welfare.

I have been blessed to be in occupations and avocations dealing with, working with, and assisting the 'poor' much of my adult life. And that has reinforced my opinion that Benjamin Franklin was absolutely right when he wrote:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."​

I agree with that for the most part but having been at that level and worked out of it I know there needs to be a safeguard in place for those who need it.